I would guess they will design the foundation of opus one to accept a tower towards the back of the building, so the towers would offset. It is possible it would be cheaper doing the entire site's groundwork at once instead of two phases, and it might make potential buyers think their western and northern views would be preserved. It would also finish off the entire property and that area in general, making the property more desirable. They might also delay 'opus 1' and do a switcharoo in 5 years after al units in opus 2 have sold. I'm also hopeful that related is saving the Whole Foods site for another tower one day, however I doubt they are including foundation implements in their current design.

Speculation or do you have a credible source? Curious, not condescending.

Part of me really hopes the skylight in Opus 1 was designed for a specific reason... like to never have the view blocked out by a skyscraper and always have a view of the sky... However, it also would have been cool if the skylight looked up at No.2 or a future high-rise. If No.1 has a high-rise portion to it, I would love to see it with a similar white and clear, cylindrical facade.

Speculation or do you have a credible source? Curious, not condescending.

Part of me really hopes the skylight in Opus 1 was designed for a specific reason... like to never have the view blocked out by a skyscraper and always have a view of the sky... However, it also would have been cool if the skylight looked up at No.2 or a future high-rise. If No.1 has a high-rise portion to it, I would love to see it with a similar white and clear, cylindrical facade.

L.ARCH is correct. I have seen drawings that show two additional towers above the pavilion, surrounding the skylight. The plan shown above has two grey bars that represent two future tower cores.

This is smack dab in the linear park between oakland and the capitol, although I think there's no parking on site at this project? I'm trying to recall previous articles. I like the updated design. I love seeing the area south of Edgewood Ave, west of Oakland Cemetery, and along Memorial develop. I imagine it as a giant TOD node. It's so close to Downtown, the BeltLine, night life, transit, essentially everything the city will have to offer and should be a relatively dense, vibrant area to live north and south of the tracks.

Note that the Memorial Drive Greenway plans show the Harp building remaining as a "beer garden / restaurant". So I don't think this really damages the plans for the greenway. In fact, it probably helps them.

L.ARCH is correct. I have seen drawings that show two additional towers above the pavilion, surrounding the skylight. The plan shown above has two grey bars that represent two future tower cores.

I really appreciate when you and others with some insight come to post! Gives us something to really look forward to. Any additional information you're able to provide? General height, shape, and/or functionality of the two remaining towers? I imagine the tower cores depicted in the rendering merely represent a general location of the towers, rather than their general size and shape.

They really are. Imagine if drivers stopped subsidizing mass transit. There wouldn't be any mass transit. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Yes, I'm that one on this board who personally hates transit, simply because I have no choice but to use it everyday and I'm tired of it. But I do see benefits in it and want to see it expanded. But I often show family and friends statements that are made here and it's hilarious.

They really are. Imagine if drivers stopped subsidizing mass transit. There wouldn't be any mass transit. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Uh, privately funded mass transit existed long before cars. Even here in Atlanta, we have dozens of private streetcar lines crisscrossing the city that you could ride for a dime (inflation adjusted equivalent of a $1.50) before they had to compete with the rise of the automobile and subsidized highways.

Don't think we need to get rid of cars at all. But transit certainly would be in line to benefit if we level the playing field and give people a real choice between paying directly for the transportation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlanta3000

HARP BUILDING

Frankly I am HIGHLY surprised by the negativity concerning this project. To my knowledge this is the only development under construction/proposed that does not have any parking. I repeat...NO PARKING.

Uh, privately funded mass transit existed long before cars. Even here in Atlanta, we have dozens of private streetcar lines crisscrossing the city that you could ride for a dime (inflation adjusted equivalent of a $1.50) before they had to compete with the rise of the automobile and subsidized highways.

Correct. But it also ended because it was no longer profitable. The auto companies bought many of the lines on the cheap because they were going under.

Edit to add they were no longer profitable because people wanted cars. Cars were and are the future. They will also make transit even more obsolete when autonomous cars become cheap.

Excuse my ignorance, are these parts of the crane just being stored to the side until the crane raises its height? Or is this a second crane being constructed for the project? I don't think I noticed this before on other projects. Sorry for not taking a pic with the actual crane in the frame:

They really are. Imagine if drivers stopped subsidizing mass transit. There wouldn't be any mass transit. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Are you implying that automobile infrastructure isn't heavily subsidized? Because that would be unbelievably false. The myth that roads somehow pay for themselves and don't require massive subsidies is so wrong and pervasive.

Are you implying that automobile infrastructure isn't heavily subsidized? Because that would be unbelievably false. The myth that roads somehow pay for themselves and don't require massive subsidies is so wrong and pervasive.

Where in my statement did you get that from? Of course I'm not implying that.

But it should also be noted that the economic output of roads is much more than just surrounding development. Being that way more people use roads than rail and the fact that wide roads can also accommodate mass transit while rail line can't accommodate private transit. The amount of goods that pass through a road in any given year exceeds the cost to build it. Factor that in as well. That isn't including the jobs that people use roads to get to and from. You can build a city without transit but try building one without cars and tell me how well that works out. I'm sure there is some city out there that has done it, but I haven't heard it. I've seen articles on some, but I can't remember the names. That says a lot, anecdotally at least.

Where in my statement did you get that from? Of course I'm not implying that.

But it should also be noted that the economic output of roads is much more than just surrounding development. Being that way more people use roads than rail and the fact that wide roads can also accommodate mass transit while rail line can't accommodate private transit. The amount of goods that pass through a road in any given year exceeds the cost to build it. Factor that in as well. That isn't including the jobs that people use roads to get to and from. You can build a city without transit but try building one without cars and tell me how well that works out. I'm sure there is some city out there that has done it, but I haven't heard it. I've seen articles on some, but I can't remember the names. That says a lot, anecdotally at least.

Correct. But it also ended because it was no longer profitable. The auto companies bought many of the lines on the cheap because they were going under.

Edit to add they were no longer profitable because people wanted cars. Cars were and are the future. They will also make transit even more obsolete when autonomous cars become cheap.

If it is what everyone "wants" why do we have to subsidize it so much? People would be a lot more strategic in how they got around and how far out they lived if they had to pay a $10 toll each way to cover that nice multi-billion dollar highway they are cruising down and building owners were not required to build a giant surplus of parking spaces for every where they want to go. Stop making those of us who don't even own a car pay those massive costs if we don't want to.

Transit is still profitable elsewhere in the world where they don't have as massive of automotive subsidies. Hong Kong's subway system has seen a nice surge in it's stock price recently: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/66:HK

Again, all I am saying is we need to level the playing field and let people make their own choices. Scale back the massive subsides for both. If I want to build a home or business without any parking, I should have that right.

And autonomous cars will be game changing for transit as most will operate like transit. I could even see companies like Uber building or buying transit lines in order to integrate it in with their network of autonomous taxis. Of course if you still want to own a car no one will stop you, it just won't make much financial sense when you can get an autonomous taxi into work for $2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

But it should also be noted that the economic output of roads is much more than just surrounding development. Being that way more people use roads than rail and the fact that wide roads can also accommodate mass transit while rail line can't accommodate private transit. The amount of goods that pass through a road in any given year exceeds the cost to build it. Factor that in as well. That isn't including the jobs that people use roads to get to and from. You can build a city without transit but try building one without cars and tell me how well that works out. I'm sure there is some city out there that has done it, but I haven't heard it. I've seen articles on some, but I can't remember the names. That says a lot, anecdotally at least.

You do realize most cities in the world were originally built without cars, correct? Cars have only been around about a 100 years. And car usage is falling in many places and lots of cities are exploring banning cars from the city center. I don't think we need to go that far yet, but no city of Atlanta's size can thrive on cars alone. Cars simply do not have the capacity of rail transit. Even our massive 12+ laned highways only have the same capacity of one transit line.

If it is what everyone "wants" why do we have to subsidize it so much? People would be a lot more strategic in how they got around and how far out they lived if they had to pay a $10 toll each way to cover that nice multi-billion dollar highway they are cruising down and building owners were not required to build a giant surplus of parking spaces for every where they want to go. Stop making those of us who don't even own a car pay those massive costs if we don't want to.

Transit is still profitable elsewhere in the world where they don't have as massive of automotive subsidies. Hong Kong's subway system has seen a nice surge in it's stock price recently: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/66:HK

Again, all I am saying is we need to level the playing field and let people make their own choices. Scale back the massive subsides for both. If I want to build a home or business without any parking, I should have that right.

And autonomous cars will be game changing for transit as most will operate like transit. I could even see companies like Uber building or buying transit lines in order to integrate it in with their network of autonomous taxis. Of course if you still want to own a car no one will stop you, it just won't make much financial sense when you can get an autonomous taxi into work for $2.

You do realize most cities in the world were originally built without cars, correct? Cars have only been around about a 100 years. And car usage is falling in many places and lots of cities are exploring banning cars from the city center. I don't think we need to go that far yet, but no city of Atlanta's size can thrive on cars alone. Cars simply do not have the capacity of rail transit. Even our massive 12+ laned highways only have the same capacity of one transit line.

If it's what everyone wants but why do we have to subsidize it? I'm not even sure how to respond to that. What are you trying to imply by that? That since everyone wants it it needs to be free? It's infrastructure. Should I argue that companies that make rail cars are only subsidized by the government because they don't pay for the infrastructure their rail cars on? Or should I shift that argument to that people that use it?

As for the most cities were built without cars thing. . . well, yeah, the first automobiles didn't come about until the late 1800s and even at that they were only for the ultra rich until about 1900s and weren't mass produced for awhile after that. The cities that are considering banning car from city centers are those hay suffer from horrible congestion because people want to use cars.

I've seen the proposal details from Paris. It will be rather interesting if it does in fact come to fruition and how long it will last. I view that as a rather cheap method of going about things and one of the only reasons the New Urbanist methods have taken shape. It's rather cheap for cities to restripe roads and add painted bike lanes. You see a lot of them doing it. Road diets and such. Building expensive transit lines, not so much. Though I will note there is a sizeable boom in rail construction. I do like seeing infrastructure investment nonetheless.

Car driving is actually going up in Canada, Mexico, U.S., and Asia. I am not sure about the rest of the world. I am not suggesting any city thrive on cars alone. Hell I'm hoping my hometown(OKC) announces a light rail line soon because it has no options for that.

Now about the autonomous car comment- I disagree with the way you foresee the market for these types of cars. Americans especially are a private ownership culture. Not many people are going to want to share a car. This might fly in Europe, but carsharing did not work out too well in the U.S. or at least to the extent I remember seeing articles claiming it would.

It will be great for you college students, tourists, lower class, etc that will likely use it the most, but I do not foresee the people who can afford their own car not buying one out of choice in the near future(I use the term near very loosely being 50 years or more).

I will completely agree with you on the parking requirements. There should be no minimumparking requirements at all in certain parts of the city. The parts don't have it should have parking maximums, imo.

At this point with the recent boom in construction around city cores, people now have a choice more than ever to live comfortably in a an urban environment without a car and they just aren't choosing to do so. As I said, around 80% of new housing growth was suburban. I'm not just pulling these numbers out of my ass. If you want, I will provide links.

As for transit systems in cities like Hong Kong, you're talking cities that if measured in the way CMSA are measured here in the states, they would have populations of 100 million people. They can't be compared to US cities. The largest is NE mega corridor which has like 50 million. Amtrak only profitable line is there. Does Europe even have any systems that turn out a profit?

Disclaimer: I don't actually agree with ending all transit subsidies, but I do prefer to see automobile oriented infrastructure prioritized over transit based. I'm also the odd millennial according to statistics on this issue even though it was recently revealed more and more millenails are beginning to opt for suburbia. I for one just moved out DTLA into the hills and pretty soon once I get a car I'm aiming for the suburbs in Orange County. I certainly see the benefits of urban living as it was super nice to have the stores all nearby, but the benifits of the freedoms of cars and wide roads outweigh those with narrow streets, transit, and stores/restaurants withincose walking distance. That is just personally.

"The McPherson Implementing Local Redevelopment Authority has selected a partnership led by Atlanta area developer and planner Stephen Macauley. Terms of the partnership were not immediately known, but Macauley Investments will be in charge of maintaining and reviving existing buildings, as well as for new development on a campus totaling about 145 acres."